The only role the Judge / Governor would seem to fit would be close-range defense in the home. From what I’ve seen, they aren’t accurate with the .410 shells at anything other than across-the-room ranges, and if you want to carry .45 Colt or .45 ACP there are much better revolver options than those large, heavy, bulky revolvers. The question is then whether the .410 is a viable option for close-range defense. I can see arguments either way.

Shyster wrote:The only role the Judge / Governor would seem to fit would be close-range defense in the home. From what I’ve seen, they aren’t accurate with the .410 shells at anything other than across-the-room ranges, and if you want to carry .45 Colt or .45 ACP there are much better revolver options than those large, heavy, bulky revolvers. The question is then whether the .410 is a viable option for close-range defense. I can see arguments either way.

The .410 buckshot loads are Ok (3 pellet 000buck) for self defense and the PDX type stuff, But anything other than that stinks, esp slugs out of the .410 because of the short barrel it doesn't have time to build velocity so most of the powder leaves the barrel unburnt.

I really fell in love with the judge when I first read about it, thought it was going to be a great thing. Then I found someone with one and went to the range with it, well my opinion changed in the hurry. Its BIG and Heavy and recoils like a kicking horse in your hand with powerful loads. It is not a joy to shoot at all. There is no real comfortable way to conceal carry it so you can't really use it as that, there are better revolver options that are cheaper for home defense so it doesn't really make sense there either.

About the only thing I found it useful for was throwing clays in the air and shooting them with a handgun.

I have a product recommendation. I recently bought one of the Impact-22 rolling targets from Impact Steel Targets. The company’s video shows the concept:

This thing is a great plinking accessory. After hundreds of hits mine was undamaged except for some lost paint, and some bright spray paint on the tips would make it easier to see anyway. I’ll bring a can of neon paint next time. The target “walks” a little farther away with each hit, so each successful shot makes the next shot a little more challenging. I’m going to pick up the centerfire model too. I got mine at Amazon.

You can get it other places, but with Amazon the Impact-22 qualifies for the Super Saver free shipping, and that makes it the cheapest place to buy that I found. Amazon doesn't itself sell the Impact-45 centerfire version, although one of the third-party sellers on Amazon does offer it.

pronovost19 wrote:But, I must admit, the Remington 870 12 gage is right besdie the bed.

Did it rust yet?

Mine is clean as a whistle still and I was caught in a torrential downpour while turkey hunting this past April. Are they known for rusting or something? I haven't cleaned mine that much either (as I probably should)

pronovost19 wrote:But, I must admit, the Remington 870 12 gage is right besdie the bed.

Did it rust yet?

Mine is clean as a whistle still and I was caught in a torrential downpour while turkey hunting this past April. Are they known for rusting or something? I haven't cleaned mine that much either (as I probably should)

Supposedly, Adaisha Miller hugged an off-duty Detroit cop from behind, and the hug somehow made his gun—which was in a IWB (inside the waistband) holster—discharge and kill her. This story stinks to me, and I very much doubt it’s true. First, even soft-sided holsters like ones made of nylon and similar fabrics are not so soft as to allow a trigger to be depressed through them. There’s no way the trigger on a holstered gun could be depressed through the holster. And this holster was inside the waistband of his pants, not outside it. Second, the Detroit Police Department issues a version of the Smith & Wesson M&P, which has a fairly long trigger pull of more than 6 lbs. The gun will not fire unless that trigger is brought fully and completely to the rear. Anything less will not fire the gun. We’re talking about pulling that trigger fully to the rear through both a holster and a pair of pants. Third, guns in IWB holsters generally point down and slightly to the rear. Even assuming the trigger was pulled enough to fire, it would have fired toward the ground. But Adaisha Miller was hit in the chest. She wasn’t a child who'd be close to the ground; she was 24. How could it hit her in the chest?

What say you, fellow gun owners? I think this whole story sounds like a cover-up.

Supposedly, Adaisha Miller hugged an off-duty Detroit cop from behind, and the hug somehow made his gun—which was in a IWB (inside the waistband) holster—discharge and kill her. This story stinks to me, and I very much doubt it’s true. First, even soft-sided holsters like ones made of nylon and similar fabrics are not so soft as to allow a trigger to be depressed through them. There’s no way the trigger on a holstered gun could be depressed through the holster. And this holster was inside the waistband of his pants, not outside it. Second, the Detroit Police Department issues a version of the Smith & Wesson M&P, which has a fairly long trigger pull of more than 6 lbs. The gun will not fire unless that trigger is brought fully and completely to the rear. Anything less will not fire the gun. We’re talking about pulling that trigger fully to the rear through both a holster and a pair of pants. Third, guns in IWB holsters generally point down and slightly to the rear. Even assuming the trigger was pulled enough to fire, it would have fired toward the ground. But Adaisha Miller was hit in the chest. She wasn’t a child who'd be close to the ground; she was 24. How could it hit her in the chest?

What say you, fellow gun owners? I think this whole story sounds like a cover-up.

Well the simple answer is they got the holster wrong. Under the arm holsters would do this as they don't always have the trigger protected and if you reach from behind someone the muzzle is pointed at your heart.

DelPen wrote:Well the simple answer is they got the holster wrong. Under the arm holsters would do this as they don't always have the trigger protected and if you reach from behind someone the muzzle is pointed at your heart.

That would be an explanation, but the Chief of the Detroit Police held a press conference where he specifically and repeatedly said the gun was in “a non-department-issued waist holster.” Also, a representative of the police officers’ union in Detroit described the gun as being carried “in a holster worn inside the officer's waistband and … covered by his shirt.” Everyone is saying that it was an IWB belt holster.

DelPen wrote:Well the simple answer is they got the holster wrong. Under the arm holsters would do this as they don't always have the trigger protected and if you reach from behind someone the muzzle is pointed at your heart.

That would be an explanation, but the Chief of the Detroit Police held a press conference where he specifically and repeatedly said the gun was in “a non-department-issued waist holster.” Also, a representative of the police officers’ union in Detroit described the gun as being carried “in a holster worn inside the officer's waistband and … covered by his shirt.” Everyone is saying that it was an IWB belt holster.

So I guess the other explanation is the gun had a forward cant, she was on her knees and reached around and put her hands down his pants.

Something other than the bullcrap story they’re spinning happened. No way this went down like the chief of police is saying it did. Even if the holster somehow managed to hit the trigger, the trajectories are all wrong for the victim to be hit in the chest. I think more likely options include:

1. The officer was showing off the gun (perhaps while intoxicated, as this did happen at a party) and negligently shot and killed the victim.

2. They were doing something other than “hugging” at the time, and the gun was dislodged during those activities.

3. The gun wasn’t in a holster at all, and the officer was carrying “Mexican-style” with the gun just tucked into his pants. Perhaps the gun slipped down his pants from the hug and while grabbing at it he pulled the trigger (see Plaxico Burress). That could explain how the gun might have been angled up enough to hit the victim in the chest.

I’m bugged by this story because most of the media reports on this seem to be rather uncritically reporting the story issued by the police department. There seems to be a tendency in the media to think that guns are like set mousetraps—one little wrong drop or nudge and—bam!—it just goes off on you. But that’s not true at all.

tifosi77 wrote:If I'm not mistaken, the Smith M&P is a double action only striker-fired pistol. Plus it has a trigger safety.

That gun does not go off unless someone squeezes the trigger. I'm having a really hard time envisioning a way for the scenario to have happened the way it has been reported. A really hard time.

Yes the M&P is a striker fired gun and the only way it will go off is be pulling the trigger. M&P's come in a lot of configurations, some have thumb safety some don't, some have hard triggers by design (mass or NY trigger). Some can be fired with the mag removed, some can't. In the end the only way any of those configurations of the M&P will fire is if someone pulls the trigger.

Something doesn't add up in this story at all, someone is not telling the truth. My guess we will here a followup story that has details that make more sense. Whether that is true or not who knows.

This story has what might be the single stupidest piece of writing on gun crime I've ever seen:

"Police think that James Holmes, suspected of killing 12 moviegoers and wounding 58 at a theater in Aurora, Colo., acted alone. But some would say the shooter had help — in the form of the three guns he brought with him into the theater."

Really? You think the guns were an accomplice?

Oy.

Anyway, the central point of the piece is that the alleged shooter was able to wreak a lot more carnage because he had high-cap mags that had been outlawed by the assault weapons ban that was allowed to lapse in 2004.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the added capacity only subtracted perhaps 30 seconds from the time it would otherwise have taken him to commit the crime. (Allegedly) And seeing as he was apprehended at his car while attempting to flee the scene, there's no way that the added capacity added to the carnage.

tifosi77 wrote:Anyway, the central point of the piece is that the alleged shooter was able to wreak a lot more carnage because he had high-cap mags that had been outlawed by the assault weapons ban that was allowed to lapse in 2004.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the added capacity only subtracted perhaps 30 seconds from the time it would otherwise have taken him to commit the crime. (Allegedly) And seeing as he was apprehended at his car while attempting to flee the scene, there's no way that the added capacity added to the carnage.

But the 'reportage' will no doubt focus on this point.

Actually it was kind of lucky he was using those ludicrous ultra high cap magazines. I have a 100 round drum for my AK and it is a PoS. I heard that he actually jammed his AR. If he was just using standard high quality 30 round mags he would have killed more people.

tifosi77 wrote:Anyway, the central point of the piece is that the alleged shooter was able to wreak a lot more carnage because he had high-cap mags that had been outlawed by the assault weapons ban that was allowed to lapse in 2004.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the added capacity only subtracted perhaps 30 seconds from the time it would otherwise have taken him to commit the crime. (Allegedly) And seeing as he was apprehended at his car while attempting to flee the scene, there's no way that the added capacity added to the carnage.

But the 'reportage' will no doubt focus on this point.

Actually it was kind of lucky he was using those ludicrous ultra high cap magazines. I have a 100 round drum for my AK and it is a PoS. I heard that he actually jammed his AR. If he was just using standard high quality 30 round mags he would have killed more people.

I agree, I had a beta mag for my AR and sold it because it caused problems. I don't think i was ever able to get through 100 rounds without at least 1 malfunction.

Its a real shame people use these senseless tragedies to push their own agenda's. No matter what law you pass, no matter what safety precautions you take people who are crazy and want to kill other people are going to find a way to do it. The three biggest massacres in the US didn't involve guns. 911 = planes , OKC = Diesel fuel and fertilizer, Happy land NY(1990) = 2 gallons of gasoline. For all we know this clown would have stole a gas tanker and rammed it into the theater and killed everyone if he didn't have the guns.

Another fleeting though, how come all these planned shooting sprees around the world always seem to happen in a so called "gun free zone" just like the theater in Co. I think it just goes to show that CCW holders are a pretty law abiding group and chose not to carry their firearm because the movie theater banned them. Not saying a CCW holder would have made a difference in that scenerio but still gives you something to think about.